Photography

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I posted my favorite camera settings and lighting diagram on the web site: https://RocketsEtc.com/rocket-photography/camera-settings/

With regards to lens, if you can afford a telephoto lens with wide aperture, you will like how it brings attention to the rocket by blurring the background.

Get a good tripod (not those flimsy ones from BestBuy).

If you are not experienced with filters, forget them for now. They block some of sunlight that you need for quick exposure. You will get better photos with sharp rocket rather than with blurry rocket but good colors.

Do not try to photograph the rocket from lift-off all the way to apogee, conditions are too different. Decide on one composition that you think is the best, and practice shooting it.

Post your photos on TRF :)
 
I would recommend that you use a higher F-Stop and set the focus closer than infinity. That will give you a wider range of focus. Read Ansel Adam's books to understand why.

If you are interested in composition Ansel Adam's books are great. He explains how he took the image and how he printed it. Then the full page image is next to it. Read the description and study the photos and you can learn from one of the best.
That is correct. You want to set the camera to the hyperfocal distance. (The article is rather poorly written however definition is correct). When set at the hyperfocal distance every point from infinity to 1/2 the hyperfocal distance is in acceptable, but you want to make sure you manually set the aperture. (The article botched the explanation. If your using black and white, the circle of confusion should be the diagonal of the pixel dimensions, or if in color, the diameter of the pixel cell dimensions), and it will also depend on the focal length of the lens and the F/N of the optical system.) DOFMaster is the most technical website, but it walks you through the explanation and allows you to print a setting guide for your specific camera. I've use it for a few decades.

The only way to learn composition is to take a lot of pictures. It's really simple and cheap with digital camera. When you get back at home and review the images it will quickly become apparent what are the good images.

FastStone Image Viewer is an excellent image viewing, processing shareware software package that is free for home use. I highly recommend it. It has an excellent image resizing algorithms to reduce the size of your images for posting.

You want to store your original images in a .tiff or .png format because they use lossless compression algorithms that are slightly smaller than the raw images. .jpg images are fine for the web or e-mail because they offer better compression than the lossless compression algorithm, but they will alter the image to some extent.

Bob
 
You want to store your original images in a .tiff or .png format because they use lossless compression algorithms that are slightly smaller than the raw images. .jpg images are fine for the web or e-mail because they offer better compression than the lossless compression algorithm, but they will alter the image to some extent.

Bob

That is very far from correct and is quite frankly horrible advice, Bob.

Raw files from my camera are 20 megabytes. 8 bit PNGs tend to be 40 MB, 8-bit TIFFs are 50 MB, and you can double that size for 16 bit ones which are what you want to use.

But size isn't all. Once you create the TIFF or PNG, you have thrown out any potential improvements in demosaicing and sensor color aware denoising, and you bake in the white balance and highlight recovery. If you ever want to change them, you lose dynamic range compared to opening the raw file fresh.
 
Last edited:
I made a detailed post several week with references on this topic. https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...e-format-should-I-save-as&p=732220#post732220 I will comment that most advanced cameras are using 16-bit and sometimes 24-bit words in their raw data files, and a base uncompressed .tiff file is a bit image file which is virtually the same as your raw data file but it is not in a proprietary format so you can use them in any image processing program, not just the one that came with your camera.

Compressed .tiff and .png files are not restricted to 8-bit words. You should be getting a 30-70% compression with a .tiff or .png file versus a .raw files. Additionally the compression routines in .tiff and .png files are lossless as compared to .jpg which is not so you should not be loosing any detail with them.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I made a detailed post several week with references on this topic. https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...e-format-should-I-save-as&p=732220#post732220 I will comment that most advanced cameras are using 16-bit and sometimes 24-bit words in their raw data files, and a base uncompressed .tiff file is a bit image file which is virtually the same as your raw data file but it is not in a proprietary format so you can use them in any image processing program, not just the one that came with your camera.

RAW file formats are available; there are even free utilities that can read RAW files. Matter of fact, I've never installed the Canon software for my 6D (I use Lightroom and PhotoShop).

Compressed .tiff and .png files are not restricted to 8-bit words. You should be getting a 30-70% compression with a .tiff or .png file versus a .raw files. Additionally the compression routines in .tiff and .png files are lossless as compared to .jpg which is not so you should not be loosing any detail with them.

While technically accurate, this statement is misleading and implies that RAW is lossy. It's not. I know you know that, but I want to make sure anyone else reading along understands that.

-Kevin
 
Thank you. Great advice, with an example no less. Great starting point for me. I am looking only for liftoff photos of the rocket just off the pad so this information works well for me. I have a good tripod. Giottos MT9160. Aluminum so a bit heavy but doesn't move at all once set in position. I will eventually get a good telephoto but not in the budget right now.

I posted my favorite camera settings and lighting diagram on the web site: https://RocketsEtc.com/rocket-photography/camera-settings/

With regards to lens, if you can afford a telephoto lens with wide aperture, you will like how it brings attention to the rocket by blurring the background.

Get a good tripod (not those flimsy ones from BestBuy).

If you are not experienced with filters, forget them for now. They block some of sunlight that you need for quick exposure. You will get better photos with sharp rocket rather than with blurry rocket but good colors.

Do not try to photograph the rocket from lift-off all the way to apogee, conditions are too different. Decide on one composition that you think is the best, and practice shooting it.

Post your photos on TRF :)
 
It seems my techniques run counter to what many have stated here, but I'll run through them anyways.

First off, one of my better shots:


I'm still working on my skills, so this one is a little underexposed, but I still like it.

Anyways, I follow the Chris Taylor (of NARAMLive! fame) philosophy. I run in either full manual or aperture priority mode. I open the aperture to the largest it will go and then set the ISO as low as I can without allowing the shutter speed to drop below 1/1000 of a second. I prefer shooting at ISO100 if I can, but I'll compromise if I need to. These days I prefer shooting in full manual just to make sure the camera is doing what I want it to.

A couple of other settings that I find important. I shoot Auto-Focus: Single, which focuses with a half-pressed shutter and doesn't refocus until you release the shutter. If you are using a semi-automatic or full-automatic mode, I make sure that it locks the exposure settings when I half-press the shutter. That way I know that it isn't going to be shifting around as I move the camera. I also use a center-weighted light metering because I'm more interested in the rocket that what is around it. Finally, I keep my camera in continuous shot mode (mine will do up to 8 exposures/sec.) even if I only intend to do single exposures.

The big thing to remember is that you are using a digital camera. Take a TON of pictures and pick out the best ones. The secret to being a good photographer is never showing anyone the bad ones. :p

Also remember that you have legs! If you don't like the shot where you are, MOVE! Troj commented that he doesn't like sunny days, but I love them. The trick is that you want a highlighted rocket, not a silhouetted one; always keep the sun in a 60*-90* cone behind you if you can. Morning and afternoon are the best time for good pictures, high noon means that everything is uniformly lit, so there are no interesting shadows to counter the highlights.
 
Brian, our philosophies are pretty similar.

As far as sunny days, I don't like glaring sunny days -- color tends to get washed out. You can also easily end up with having to overexpose the sky in order to get a decent exposure of something in it.

You're right on the moving around -- changing angles not only changes light, but also perspective.

BTW, I like the picture. Some of the smoke conspired against you, but that's something you cannot control.

-Kevin
 
Microsoft offers a Camera Codec Pack that will let you view RAW files in explorer/ picture viewer, it's not widely publicized but it's been around since 2011 and they update it whenever new camera raw files are released.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26829

I'm a Lightroom 5 user, it does much more then earlier versions and I have no use for Photoshop these days.

I also agree with CarVac that .tiff & .png are not used in today's photo world.
 
I've been reading RAW/TIFF debate and from will say this, coming from experience:

While RAW format saves additional dynamic range as compared to JPEG, and you indeed might be able to recover some highlights from sky, etc, be prepared to spend considerable amount time post-processing your photos to get visible results. At the same time, if you have an average SD / CF card and switch your camera to RAW, the camera will throttle frame-per-second rate. For shooting lift-off, unless you're going for studio prints, I'd chose higher frame rate over RAW.

TIFF and PNG formats preserve straight lines, which makes them great for presentations and drawings. For photography, set JPEG quality to highest (both in camera and post-processing software), and you won't see much difference.
 
At the same time, if you have an average SD / CF card and switch your camera to RAW, the camera will throttle frame-per-second rate. For shooting lift-off, unless you're going for studio prints, I'd chose higher frame rate over RAW.

If you've invested in a DSLR, invest in decent memory cards. Card speed does matter, and slow cards are just crippling the camera.

It also affects the amount of time required to download images.

Also, in my experience card readers are much faster than downloading images through the camera.

-Kevin (who just switched to a USB 3 card reader and can tell the difference)
 
I made a detailed post several week with references on this topic. https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...e-format-should-I-save-as&p=732220#post732220 I will comment that most advanced cameras are using 16-bit and sometimes 24-bit words in their raw data files, and a base uncompressed .tiff file is a bit image file which is virtually the same as your raw data file but it is not in a proprietary format so you can use them in any image processing program, not just the one that came with your camera.

Compressed .tiff and .png files are not restricted to 8-bit words. You should be getting a 30-70% compression with a .tiff or .png file versus a .raw files. Additionally the compression routines in .tiff and .png files are lossless as compared to .jpg which is not so you should not be loosing any detail with them.

Bob

For the past two years, I've been writing a photo editor on the side. (https://github.com/CarVac/filmulator-gui in case you're on linux and are inclined to try it) I do research on and think about this stuff day in and day out. I have generated many thousands of TIFF files in the process of developing my application, and at 16 bits per channel, they were an uncompressed 108 megabytes per 18-MP image. PNG compression brought them down to 90 megabytes. The raw files from my 60D were only about 22. Numbers do not lie: the raw files were significantly smaller. My GR is even better: the tiffs are about 96 MB when uncompressed (16 megapixels versus 18), but the raw files are miniscule: only 12-15 MB apiece.

Raw files are almost always 12 or 14 bits per sensel, extremely rarely 16 bits, and there are only as many sensels as output pixels. I know this for a fact: no consumer camera uses 24 bit ADC's. None. On top of that, they are often further compressed, sometimes lossily (an option on some Nikon DSLR's and an unfortunate flaw on the Sony A7 series), but usually losslessly. That's why the raw file sizes tend to vary with subject detail, in the same manner as jpeg sizes changing.

A TIFF or PNG is larger because they have 3 channels per output pixel, and it's competing against something that's already compressed.

Furthermore, the "proprietary format" argument is pretty much garbage. dcraw is public domain and it opens everything...I'm using a library that's derived from it. Even most commercial raw processing software has its roots in dcraw's raw unpacking algorithms. It's not going to go away, so support for old cameras isn't just going to vanish as many try to imply.



Don't scare people away from keeping the raws around.
 
Shoot JPEG and RAW -- most cameras support saving both.
Use the JPEG's for quick sort & post things and use the NEF's when you get serious and want to print.
You can drop the size of the JPEG's when you do this so they are easier to view & post...since the RAW has the full resolution.

Data format [usually] does not effect the frame rate until you run out of buffer - usually not an issue for liftoff's unless you are a total spray & pray person -- time the first shot and there is almost always enough buffer to get 3-4 shots off - by then the rocket is on it's way.

Manual focus at the Hyperfocal setting for your lens.
Turn off AF and VR.
Get the SS up to >2000th/sec.

Forget the tripod -- don't need it due to the shutter speed you NEED to capture the rocket -- and it makes you too static and harder to follow the rocket.

Grab shots like this:
Gabe-Liftoff.jpg
 
I do get a kick out of people who buy something like a Canon 5D, keep it in 'auto' and expect "better pictures", then complain there are "too many buttons / settings"
 
Last edited:
I have been taking rocket photos for over 20 years, and doing photography/video my entire life. I've taught Photoshop since the early '90s. For rockets, here are my basics:
  • manual focus - use focus peaking if available or set up a 'quick zoom' focus aid button
  • shutter priority of at least 1/1000 (shutter speed is key, aperture is not)
  • auto ISO
  • set exposure override to under-expose by about 1/2 - 1 stop (helps prevent washout of exhaust and white rockets, depends on camera)
  • set a custom button for 'AE hold' for quick exposure override (point camera at an area to get a good exposure, hold AE button, then reframe)
  • manual white balance - always the same setting - for consistent sky color shot to shot
  • learn how the picture format settings affect how fast and how many images you can take in a sequence - RAW + JPG is often quite limiting with many cameras
  • when shooting launches, wait until you see smoke - don't start when you hear 'launch' - you'll miss the shot
  • start with a wider angle lens - as you get better move to a stronger lens
  • if you have stabilization on your lens, learns how it works, some have a 'sports' mode that allow it to be used with fast shutter speeds and motion
  • keep an index card with a checklist of camera settings you can verify before each launch and update as you learn more about your camera and lens combo
Watch several Youtube videos that cover the operation of your camera. Use the same settings for each launch until you know how they affect your images and then only change one at a time.

But at the end of the day, there is no substitute for practice, practice, practice. Try following birds in flight, kids throwing balls around, soccer players kicking balls - anything that is somewhat similar to rockets and helps you learn to follow action and quickly frame moving objects.

Don't fall into the trap of filling up your card with pixels you'll never use - unless you extensively post process your images, high quality JPG is fine (blasphemy!) Consider that for social media, the vast majority of data is discarded anyway when the image is resized and saved as a JPG. Unless you are using Lightroom, Photoshop, or something similar to process your images, and understand how to use the Adobe Camera Raw plugin (or equivalent), RAW is just wasted information* - save it for the wedding photos of your kids. For rockets you want speed and LOTS of photos, something that RAW is not good at. Once you get a handle on composition and camera settings, you can always bump up image quality settings later. These are pictures of rockets, not fine art photos for museums.

As always, your mileage may vary. But keep in mind that rockets are a somewhat unique photography challenge, so what makes sense for general photography may not makes sense for us.


Tony

* In the hands of an experienced user, RAW can be like magic - allowing recovery of both highlights and shadows. But the vast majority of photographers have no idea how to properly use RAW, nor the time or inclination to process every photo they take, so it's just wasted time and space. EDIT: RAW has nothing to do with taking better photos, it only affects the quality of the recorded image. Once you get the taking part down, then you can worry about the recorded image quality
 
Last edited:
Oh I have read books and taken classes and I understand all the technical details with regards to cameras and photography and it hasn’t done a dang thing to help me take decent pictures.

They are in focus and perfectly exposed and color balanced you can’t fault the technical aspects of my photos, it’s that they just lack. . .Actually “Just lack” says it all.

I’m the only person I know who could take a picture of Ms’s June, July, August and September and have people ask me whether they were the Backstreet Boys or N Sync.

Boomtube, I live your pain. I've been shooting pictures as long as I can remember. Started with a 126 and 110, then in 78 I moved to a cheap 35mm SLR from a pawnshop. When it quit working I busted one on a Nikon N2000 with a 28-105mm lens. Loved that outfit. Burned a lot of Ilford 400 B&W film on architecture, cemeteries, portraits and whatnot. Also wasted a lot of Fuji 400 on weddings. Loved the auto film advance but could never keep anything that was moving in focus. Finally bit the bullet and went digital around 2010 with a Nikon D90, 11 focus point, 12.3 megapixel SLR and Nikkor f/3.5 18-105mm lens. This is when I started rocket photography. After a bit of experimentation the must flexible setting was the Action setting. It was a high shutter speed priority setting using the center focusing points and letting the camera work out the ISO and f stop. The frame rate was 3.5 frames per second which was on the slow side, but as long as you kept the rocket in the center of the frame you got pictures.
About 2019 I decided to take a chance on Cannon because of their lenses. Look at the professionals, almost all shoot the giant Cannon lenses. Got an 80D, 24.2 megapixel, 45-point all cross-type AF system, shooting 7 frames a second with an 18-135mm f/3.5 and a cheap 70-200mm for shooting our daughter's soccer games. Auto tracking, face recognition hundreds of different modes and settings, it does everything but bring you a beer.

Now that you've slogged through all that, here is the Reader's Digest version. It comes down to talent and luck. After all these years and all this fancy equipment my wife takes better pictures with her phone than I do with $3000 of equipment. Sometimes I just wanna pile it all in the yard and burn the lot. It is very frustrating, very disappointing and truly heartbreaking. I want to be a good photographer but I just don't have the eye. Over the years I've caught some interesting shots out of luck. As an instance, years ago I shot hundreds of pictures of a lightening storm for just three good pictures.
So, you just have to keep shooting, learn from your mistakes and listen to the advice of these nice folks.
 
Practice....Practice.....Practice.

No cell phone is going to take better action shots than a "real" camera.
 
Practice....Practice.....Practice.

No cell phone is going to take better action shots than a "real" camera.
The equipment fallacy. How to tell someone who believes their equipment makes them a photographer.

It’s like saying my brand of paintbrush makes me a better artist.

A camera is a camera is a camera. Put any camera in the right hands and it will take a great photo. The idea that you need a “real” camera to take great action shots is gatekeeping at its worst.


Tony.

PS: not to mention that modern cell phones are real cameras that outperform many ‘real cameras’ from not that many years ago. Using an app like Camera+ or Halide offers a user tremendous control.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Tony - all cameras are FAR from equal.
Just bought a Nikon Z9 for it's stellar frame rate and focus engine...
Wouldn't have spent $5.5k if my cell would have done the job.
This is an upgrade from my D500 and D810....great cameras in their own right.

Cell phones HAVE come a long way.
But they still have 4-5 plastic elements for lenses that are mostly hyperfocal.
The have TINY pixels with a pitch about 2X the wavelength they are trying to capture -> no dynamic range.
They have no way to set a shutter speed - and are NOT going to give you 1/2000th of a second or faster you NEED for rockets.

They are great for selfies and are often the best camera you are carrying, but the pro's don't shoot with cell phones at sporting events. No fallacy here....just decades of shooting sports and I can assure you a cell phone is worthless except for maybe curling.

Buying and schlepping pro bodies attached to big glass is not done for show.....you get results.
Still you need to practice and know you gear to extract the best results.

Old saying:
Buy a camera and you're a photographer.
Buy a piano and you're not a pianist.

Cameras are VERY complicated tools and not everyone can drive one.
My wife owns 3 DSLR's and one mirrorless (a very good bird photographer) and says my Z9 is way too much camera for her.
I've shot a few MILLION frames and am still learning and honing my technique.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Tony - all cameras are FAR from equal.
Just bought a Nikon Z9 for it's stellar frame rate and focus engine...
Wouldn't have spent $5.5k if my cell would have done the job.
This is an upgrade from my D500 and D810....great cameras in their own right.

Cell phones HAVE come a long way.
But they still have 4-5 plastic elements for lenses that are mostly hyperfocal.
The have TINY pixels with a pitch about 2X the wavelength they are trying to capture -> no dynamic range.
They have no way to set a shutter speed - and are NOT going to give you 1/2000th of a second or faster you NEED for rockets.

They are great for selfies and are often the best camera you are carrying, but the pro's don't shoot with cell phones at sporting events. No fallacy here....just decades of shooting sports and I can assure you a cell phone is worthless except for maybe curling.

Buying and schlepping pro bodies attached to big glass is not done for show.....you get results.
Still you need to practice and know you gear to extract the best results.

Old saying:
Buy a camera and you're a photographer.
Buy a piano and you're not a pianist.

Cameras are VERY complicated tools and not everyone can drive one.
My wife owns 3 DSLR's and one mirrorless (a very good bird photographer) and says my Z9 is way too much camera for her.
I've shot a few MILLION frames and am still learning and honing my technique.
There have already been two posts about how equipment does not a photographer make, yet you want to argue the point.

I sold cameras for 5 years, including to the top professional photographers in the Mpls-St. Paul area. As a result we had a lot of folks who bought cameras from us just so they could say they did. I can absolutely state that "Buying and schlepping pro bodies attached to big glass is not done for show.....you get results" is absolutely false in many instances - folks do it because they can and they have the mistaken notion that buying the gear makes them a photographer. But if it makes you feel better about your purchases and the money you've spent, I understand.

You are completely wrong about cell phone cameras - you clearly have no idea about the pro level of photo apps that exist that allow full control including shooting in RAW. The fact that you don't even know that you can manually set the shutter speed on a cell phone speaks volumes about your ignorance of the subject. You should quit while you are behind. To give you an example of what you've missed, I've attached a couple of screenshots below.

I have a curio cabinet full of my old film gear, starting with a Rolliflex TLR and a Nikon F, and ending with a Hassleblad and a Nikon F5. But I would never make the claim that owning that gear made me a photographer. That's something else entirely. In my 40+ years of working with professional photographers, the old adage I heard was "people buy a camera and think they're a photographer". Photography is an artistic endeavor, not a technical one. Your piano analogy could have been spot-on, except you fail to realize that photography is exactly like playing the piano.

You should look up 'gatekeeping' in the Urban Dictionary. Your post is a perfect example.


Tony

Example of a camera app with advanced features: (Camera+ 2 on iOS)

1: Camera RAW format
2: Choose between physical camera lenses
3: Manual settings, including ISO, shutter speed, and white balance
4. Shutter speed of 1/4000 selected, you can see higher speeds possible
Not shown: slow shutter of up to 30 seconds, excellent editing capabilities


Camera+.png

Additional features:
Focus Peaking and Clipping for manual focus and exposure adjustment

Camera+2.png
 
Last edited:
Equipment does NOT make a photographer. That's a joke.
But better equipment in the hands of somebody who knows how to use it [generally] results in better photos.
Some equipment is not capable of taking some photos.
And sure, some people buy gear because they can - I once had to setup a pair of D6's for a rich but clueless guy who just bought them and showed up at the sidelines of a football game to shoot his kid.

I've seem SO MANY camera salesman who think they are photographers.....not.
How did you sell cameras with this attitude -- seems your thoughts indicate you stood there and told bold face lies to get a sale.

Stop drinking the iPhone Koolaid.
They are still <$10 cameras....sensor, lens and AF motor all get a budget of $10 max in laptops and cells.
Put two, three or more together you still have a set of pretty poor cameras.
I DID camera design for laptops [2D, 3D, and computational] -- I've been to Sony's imager group in Japan many times -- I know what's inside and what they are capable of.....

Garbage in - Garbage out.....with today's post, maybe just mediocre out.....
Glad you like you cell photos.
Not for me - not for everyone.

Why did you "waste" big money on a Hasselblad?
I think it's you being the gatekeeper.
 
Last edited:
Equipment does NOT make a photographer. That's a joke.
But better equipment in the hands of somebody who knows how to use it [generally] results in better photos.
Some equipment is not capable of taking some photos.
And sure, some people buy gear because they can - I once had to setup a pair of D6's for a rich but clueless guy who just bought them and showed up at the sidelines of a football game to shoot his kid.

I've seem SO MANY camera salesman who think they are photographers.....not.
How did you sell cameras with this attitude -- seems your thoughts indicate you stood there and told bold face lies to get a sale.

Stop drinking the iPhone Koolaid.
They are still <$10 cameras....sensor, lens and AF motor all get a budget of $10 max in laptops and cells.
Put two, three or more together you still have a set of pretty poor cameras.
I DID camera design for laptops [2D, 3D, and computational] -- I've been to Sony's imager group in Japan many times -- I know what's inside and what they are capable of.....

Garbage in - Garbage out.....with today's post, maybe just mediocre out.....
Glad you like you cell photos.
Not for me - not for everyone.

Why did you "waste" big money on a Hasselblad?
I think it's you being the gatekeeper.
Once someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, no point in going any further. That person has hit the end of their reasoning ability.

Sorry everyone for the thread derail, I was just trying to say you don’t need thousands of dollars of gear to be a great photographer. Somehow that message got sidetracked.

But for what it’s worth, I think the best rocket lens on the market is the Nikon 200-500, which I’ve used to take many of the photos I’ve posted in other threads. Just a great lens for the money.


Tony
 
Polarizers are useful for careful work (tripods and normal vacation stuff), but not for quick reaction type stuff like rocketry.
Polarizers can really make your colors pop and are great at tuning the amount of reflections off the subject, but they do result in a reduction of the subtle color gradations which can be deleterious to your images. The speed reduction by 1-3 stops when using a polarizer reduces their practicality in photographing rockets, where shutter speed is your friend.
 
Back
Top